Disney Streaming Antitrust Settlement: Claim Window Closed
At a glance
- Status
- Pending final approval
- Defendant
- The Walt Disney Company
- Settlement fund
- $50,000,000
- Claim deadline
- September 8, 2026
- No-proof cash option
- Yes — pro-rata cash, self-certified subscription length (no documentation)
- Estimated payout
- pro-rata cash, self-certified subscription length (no documentation)
- Administrator
- Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions
- Official site
- onlinetvsettlement.com
- Court
- Heather Biddle, et al. v. The Walt Disney Company, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose), Hon. Edward J. Davila
- Case number
- 5:22-cv-07317-EJD
Last verified September 9, 2026
Key dates
| Milestone | Date | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Claim deadline | September 8, 2026(passed) | Last day to file for a payment |
| Opt-out (exclusion) deadline | September 8, 2026(passed) | Last day to leave the settlement and keep the right to sue |
| Objection deadline | December 1, 2026 | Last day to object to the terms |
| Final approval hearing | January 14, 2027 | When the judge decides whether to approve the settlement |
| Expected payout | Not yet scheduled | Payments are not sent until after final approval and any appeals |
Where to file
Disney (YouTube TV / DirecTV Stream) Streaming Antitrust Settlement is administered by Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions. The only place to file is the official settlement website:
Verify on the official siteonlinetvsettlement.com
Filing is free. No legitimate settlement charges a fee to file a claim.
You cannot file on RecordingLaw.com. We are an independent publisher, not the settlement administrator, and we are not affiliated with any court, agency, or defendant.
The Disney streaming antitrust settlement is a $50 million fund resolving claims that The Walt Disney Company's conduct inflated the price of YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream subscriptions. This is not a data breach. No personal information is alleged to have been exposed. If you had a qualifying subscription, here is what the case claims, where it stands, and how filing actually works.
What the lawsuit actually claims
This case is Heather Biddle, et al. v. The Walt Disney Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila under case number 5:22-cv-07317-EJD. The plaintiffs allege that Disney's conduct around bundling and licensing its programming inflated the price of streaming subscriptions for YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream, which also covers the earlier DirecTV Now and AT&T TV Now services.
In plain terms, the underlying dispute is about how Disney negotiated the terms under which its channels appeared in live-TV streaming bundles, and whether that arrangement made those bundles more expensive for subscribers than they otherwise would have been. It is an antitrust and consumer-protection theory, not a claim about a hack, a leak, or mishandled customer data.
Disney has not admitted wrongdoing. Like most class action settlements, this one resolves the litigation without a finding that Disney broke the law. It ends the case between the company and the class in exchange for the $50 million payment into a common fund, rather than through a trial verdict.
It is worth saying plainly: nobody's account, password, or personal data was reported stolen here. If you came to this page expecting a data breach notice, you are in the wrong place. This is a pricing dispute over how much subscribers paid for a bundle of channels, not a security incident, and the two categories should not be confused with each other.
Where the case stands right now
As of September 9, 2026, Disney has agreed to the $50 million settlement, but the deal is not final. A federal judge still has to approve it at a final approval hearing, which the settlement's official site lists for January 14, 2027, in the San Jose division of the Northern District of California. Until that hearing happens and the judge signs off, no money moves.
That timeline matters because nobody has a payment date yet. The claim deadline, covered below, fell months before the final approval hearing and has now passed. A claim filed on time preserves that claimant's place in line if the settlement is approved as written.
One more distinction worth being precise about: the broader Biddle litigation originally involved three groups of subscribers, YouTube TV, DirecTV Stream, and FuboTV. This $50 million settlement resolves the claims of the YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream groups only. FuboTV subscribers are not covered by this deal; their claims against Disney remain a separate matter.
Who is actually in the class
You may be part of the class if you purchased a YouTube TV subscription, or a DirecTV Stream, DirecTV Now, or AT&T TV Now subscription, between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2026. That is the class period as defined by the settlement.
If your only qualifying service was FuboTV, this settlement does not include you. If you never subscribed to any of the listed services during that window, you are also not part of the class.
How much you might realistically get
There is no fixed dollar amount attached to this settlement. The payout structure is pro rata cash based on a self-certified subscription length, meaning the length of time you say you held a qualifying subscription during the class period determines your share of the $50 million fund, without needing to submit receipts or account statements.
But pro rata cuts both ways. The actual per-person amount is not set in advance. It depends on how many people file valid claims and what the court approves for attorneys' fees, administrative costs, and any other deductions from the fund. If far more people file than the fund was sized for, individual payments shrink. If fewer file, payments can rise. Treat any specific number you see elsewhere, including on other websites, as an estimate, not a promise.
The court-approved class notice also explains that the Net Settlement Fund, meaning the $50 million gross fund minus notice and claims administration costs, attorney's fees, and certain other costs and fees, is divided between class members in "Repealer Jurisdictions" and "Non-Repealer Jurisdictions." Under the notice, 90% of the Net Settlement Fund goes to class members who resided in a Repealer Jurisdiction at any time during the class period, and 10% goes to class members in Non-Repealer Jurisdictions. Class counsel has said it will ask the court for attorney's fees of up to 30% of the gross fund ($15,000,000), which the court may reduce. That is a legal technicality rooted in differences between state antitrust and consumer-protection statutes. It does not change how you file, but it is part of why one claimant's payment can differ from another's even with an identical subscription history.
What proof you need
None. This settlement uses a no-proof, self-certification model. You state how long you held a qualifying YouTube TV or DirecTV Stream (or DirecTV Now / AT&T TV Now) subscription during the class period, and that self-reported length is what your claim is based on. You do not need to dig up old billing statements or account screenshots to file.
How filing works
Filing happened on the settlement's official website, not on RecordingLaw.com or any other independent site. The deadline to file a claim, or to exclude yourself from the settlement, was September 8, 2026, and it has passed. Filing was free. Nobody legitimate will ask you to pay a fee to submit a claim or to "expedite" a payment.
Be careful with the administrator's identity. The settlement is administered by Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, and the court-approved class notice lists its mailing address as PO Box 4720, Portland, OR 97208-4720, the address that was used for claim forms and exclusion requests, both of which closed September 8, 2026. That P.O. Box is not where objections go; see the objection section below. Treat any email, text message, or phone call that claims to represent a differently named "administrator" for this specific case with suspicion, and verify anything you receive against the official site before responding or clicking a link.
Opting out vs. objecting: they are not the same thing
These two options get confused constantly, and the structure of this settlement makes the distinction more important than usual, because both deadlines fall well before the case is finalized.
Opting out, also called exclusion, means you leave the class entirely. You give up any right to a payment from the $50 million fund, but you keep your own individual right to sue Disney separately over the same claims. The deadline to opt out was the same as the claim deadline, September 8, 2026, and it has passed.
Objecting means the opposite. You stay in the class and remain eligible for a payment, but you formally tell the judge, in writing, that you think some part of the settlement, the amount, the fee request, or something else, is unfair. As of September 9, 2026, the settlement's official site lists an objection deadline of December 1, 2026, which has not passed yet, ahead of the January 14, 2027 final approval hearing. An objection must be filed with the court, not mailed to the settlement administrator. The class notice directs objections to: Class Action Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 280 South 1st Street, Room 2112, San Jose, CA 95113. Check the notice on the official site for everything an objection must include, such as your signature and the grounds for objecting. You cannot do both; opting out removes you from the class the objection process exists to influence.
If you only had FuboTV, or the deadline has passed
If your only qualifying subscription was FuboTV, you are not part of this settlement, and there is currently no claim process covering that portion of the underlying case against Disney. The September 8, 2026 claim and exclusion deadline has passed, so anyone who did not submit a claim can no longer do so; the two fell on the same date. Objections are still due December 1, 2026. Watch the official site for news out of the January 14, 2027 final approval hearing if you want to know how the case resolved, since a settlement that has not yet received final approval can still change.
This case did not involve a reported breach of personal data, so the credit-freeze and account-monitoring steps that make sense after an actual data breach are not relevant here.
For other open, currently verified settlements, including genuine data breach cases with their own separate claim windows, see RecordingLaw's data breach and privacy settlement tracker.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Disney streaming antitrust settlement a data breach settlement?
No. This is an antitrust pricing case, not a data breach; nobody's personal information is alleged to have been exposed. The underlying dispute is about whether Disney's conduct inflated the price of YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream subscriptions, not about stolen data.
Who is eligible for the Disney streaming antitrust settlement?
You may be eligible if you purchased a YouTube TV subscription, or a DirecTV Stream, DirecTV Now, or AT&T TV Now subscription, between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2026. FuboTV-only subscribers are not part of this settlement.
How much money will I get from the Disney settlement?
There is no fixed amount. Payments are pro rata cash from a $50 million fund based on your self-certified subscription length, and the final per-person amount depends on how many valid claims are filed and what the court approves in fees, so a realistic payment is likely far below any theoretical maximum.
Do I need proof of my subscription to file a claim?
No. This settlement uses a no-proof, self-certification option; you report how long you held a qualifying subscription during the class period without submitting receipts or billing records.
What is the deadline to file a claim in the Disney streaming settlement?
The deadline to file a claim, or to opt out of the settlement, was September 8, 2026, and it has passed. The objection deadline is later, December 1, 2026. Filing was only ever free and only ever happened on the official settlement website.
What is the difference between opting out and objecting to this settlement?
Opting out means leaving the class and giving up a payment from the $50 million fund in exchange for keeping your right to sue Disney separately; that deadline was September 8, 2026 and it has passed. Objecting means staying in the class while telling the court you think the deal is unfair; as of September 9, 2026, the settlement's official site lists that deadline as December 1, 2026, still open.
Are FuboTV subscribers included in this settlement?
No. The underlying lawsuit originally covered YouTube TV, DirecTV Stream, and FuboTV subscribers, but this $50 million settlement resolves only the YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream claims. FuboTV subscribers' claims against Disney are not part of this deal.
When will the Disney streaming settlement be finalized and when will payments go out?
As of September 9, 2026, no payment date has been set. A final approval hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2027 before Judge Edward J. Davila, and settlements like this one typically are not distributed until after a judge grants final approval.
Will I owe taxes on a Disney settlement payment?
It depends on what the payment is meant to replace, and that is a question for a tax professional, not a blanket rule. The IRS publishes general guidance on the tax treatment of lawsuit and settlement payments.
How to tell a settlement notice is real
Check the case name, case number, and court against the official settlement site. Go to that site directly instead of clicking a link in an email or text. Nobody legitimate will call, text, or email out of the blue asking for your Social Security number, bank account, or card details, and nobody will charge you to file. Report anyone who does at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
Already have a notice with a link or sender address? Paste it into our settlement notice checker to compare it with the official claim sites we track.
Informational only. Not legal, tax, or financial advice, and not affiliated with any settlement.
RecordingLaw.com is an independent legal-information publisher. We are not a law firm, not a settlement administrator, and not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any court, government agency, defendant, or claims administrator described on this page. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship.
We do not process claims and we never collect your claim information. You cannot file a claim on RecordingLaw.com. To file, opt out, object, or check your status, use only the official settlement administrator identified above. We link to it for your convenience.
Filing a legitimate claim is free. No legitimate settlement or administrator will charge you a fee to file, or ask for your Social Security number, bank, or card details by unsolicited call, text, or email. If someone does, it is likely a scam. Report it at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
Deadlines, amounts, and approval status change and are set by the court. We verify against the official administrator and court records, but confirm the current details on the official site before acting. Nothing here guarantees eligibility, a payment, or any amount. Settlement payments may be taxable. See IRS Publication 4345. and consult a tax professional. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state. Affiliate disclosure.
Updates
Corrected where objections must be sent (they are filed with the federal court in San Jose, not mailed to the administrator's Portland P.O. Box) and clarified that the repealer/non-repealer split applies to the net fund after fees and costs, based on where class members resided.
Updated settlement status and dates: Title said "$50M Fund Open" for a window that closed 2026-09-08 now now says the claim window is closed
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 15
§ 1Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penaltyIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 11,228 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 662)“…restall competitive entry, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1. Recognizing that §1 enjoins only anti…”
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (Supreme Court of the United States 2007, 550 U.S. 544)“…nion of the Court. Liability under §1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1, requires a “contract, combination . .…”
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 473 U.S. 614)“…A. S. No. 6997, of claims arising under the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1 et seq., and encompassed within a va…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: DOJ Files Proposed Settlement With Willow Bridge Over Alleged Rent-Algorithm Collusion, JBS Beef & Pork Wage-Fixing Settlement: $202.8M, John Deere Right-to-Repair Settlement: Claims Open to Dec 31, 2026
§ 15Suits by persons injuredIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (b), any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The court may award under this section, pursuant to a motion by such person promptly made, simple interest on actual damages for the period beginning on the date of service of such person’s pleading setting forth a claim under the antitrust laws and ending on the date of judgment, or for any shorter period therein, if the court finds that the award of such interest for such period is just in the circumstances.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 5,117 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (Supreme Court of the United States 1989, 491 U.S. 58)“…jurisdiction over claims under the federal antitrust laws. 15 U. S. C. §§ 15 and 26. Moreover, the Court in Jeffer…”
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society (Supreme Court of the United States 1975, 421 U.S. 240)“…104 (a) (1), 641-644; Clayton Act, § 4, 38 Stat. 731 , 15 U. S. C. § 15 ; Unfair Competition Act, 39 Stat. 798…”
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 473 U.S. 614)“…ion conferred on private parties by §4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 15 , and pursued by Soler here by way of i…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: PlayStation Store Antitrust Settlement: What to Do Now, Teva QVAR Inhaler Antitrust Settlement: Approved, Not Yet Paid
Sources and References
- U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Case No. 5:22-cv-07317-EJD, Heather Biddle et al. v. The Walt Disney Company (govinfo.gov case file)(govinfo.gov).gov
- IRS: Tax Implications of Settlements and Judgments(irs.gov).gov
- Biddle v. Disney Settlement, Official Case Website(onlinetvsettlement.com)
- Biddle v. Disney Settlement: Frequently Asked Questions(onlinetvsettlement.com)
- Biddle v. Disney Settlement: Court Documents(onlinetvsettlement.com)
- Biddle v. The Walt Disney Company, Docket No. 5:22-cv-07317 (CourtListener)(courtlistener.com)
- Biddle v. The Walt Disney Company: Court-Approved Class Notice (copy)(classaction.org)